Pretending There's a Choice Doesn't Absolve Governments of Their Responsibility

- Linda Sullivan -

The Legault government has announced dates for the reopening of Quebec elementary schools and daycares and has assured parents that they have the "choice" to send their children to school or not. Since Legault first announced the possible reopening three weeks ago, a petition calling on the government to keep schools and daycares closed until September has received nearly 300,000 signatures.[1] The government has invoked many high ideals as to why schools should be reopened -- from educating our children, allowing them to socialize, run around and get out of the house, to not leaving special needs children at a greater disadvantage, exposing domestic abuse that is caught by teachers and otherwise goes unseen, and contributing to herd immunity. All of these very compelling reasons for sending children to school highlight that the education system has been forced to make up for the failings of society after decades of destructive cuts to social services.

In addition to an education, the school system provides meals and snacks to food-insecure children. Since 2018, the government has been funding a breakfast program for 180,000 preschool and elementary school children at 700 schools across Quebec that fall within a qualifying socio-economic index. Schools provide a structured environment for learning, socialization and exercise and a much needed break for those who live in overcrowded, inadequate and unsafe housing. However, pitting the threat posed by COVID-19 to the health and safety of Quebeckers against threats to their mental and physical safety due to lack of social resources is no choice at all.

The government says it trusts employers to discuss with workers who have children and come to an agreement about any return to work. How will employers fill the positions of workers who do not return to work because they or their children have compromised immune systems? Will people have to "choose" between going back to work or losing their job? If someone refuses to go to work out of concern for their own safety or because they don't want to send their children to school, will Employment Insurance (EI) cover them or will they be considered as having voluntarily left their job and lose both their job and EI benefits? Many parents are already under financial stress from being on EI or mental stress from having to work from home with their children present. One can only conclude that schools are in fact being reopened for those who do NOT have a choice.

According to the World Health Organization, the following six conditions should be established before a lockdown situation is ended:

1. Disease transmission is under control,

2. Health systems are able to "detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact,"

3. Hot spot risks are minimized in vulnerable places, such as nursing homes,

4. Schools, workplaces and other essential places have established preventive measures,

5. The risk of importing new cases "can be managed," and

6. Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to live under a new normal.

The Legault government says Quebec is meeting these conditions, but repeating it does not make it so. Is saying that there are "plenty of hospital beds for those who get sick" supposed to be reassuring? The reality is quite the opposite in Montreal where two major hospitals (Sacré-Coeur and Maisonneuve-Rosemont) are presently dealing with major outbreaks of COVID-19 in the majority of their wards, to the point that they have had to transfer patients not infected with COVID-19 to other hospitals.

Parents, teachers and everyone involved in education are rightly concerned about the measures that must be in place to ensure a safe return to work and school. Considering that this government has consistently refused to consult anyone who has to implement the measures it dictates, and considering the sorry state of the education system under non-pandemic conditions, it is not confidence-inspiring.

The situation is complex and the people are doing everything in their power individually and within their collectives -- such as through their unions, community organizations and neighbourhoods -- to stay healthy and safe while helping to get the economy and life moving again. However, the situation is far from being under control. This government's tendency is to blame the people for not adhering to guidelines while refusing to look at its own record, for example requiring health care workers to frequent many health establishments, thereby greatly contributing to the spread of the virus. How can we rely on a system of governance based not on the health and well-being of society's members, but on the profit motive, which, 17 years after the SARS epidemic, has left us without the personal protection equipment we need to survive the pandemic. Discussing our rights, demands and alternatives is imperative to open the path for progress so we never again face this kind of situation.

This article was published in

Volume 50 Number 15 - May 2, 2020

Article Link:
Pretending There's a Choice Doesn't Absolve Governments of Their Responsibility - Linda Sullivan

    

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca